- From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:03:11 +0200
- To: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
- Cc: <vlad.alexander@xstandard.com>
----- Messaggio originale ----- Da: "Vlad Alexander (XStandard)"<vlad.alexander@xstandard.com> Can you post a reply on my behalf? Here it is: I am not on the list but strongly disagree with Phill's comment that "Valid code is NOT a disability issue." In my opinion, invalid markup is the number one reason for lack of accessibility on the Web. Three reasons come to mind immediately: 1. Invalid markup can confuse users of assistive technologies or provide them with inaccurate information. For example, using a BLOCKQUOTE to indent. 2. Invalid markup makes it more difficult to build assistive technology. If you need to add more processing/parsing logic into assistive technology to accommodate invalid markup, then this make it more difficult to build assistive technology. As a result, you get fewer assistive technology products developed, they are less functional and cost more. 3. Invalid markup creates ambiguities and often leads to providing inaccurate or meaningless information to users of assistive technologies. For example, an invalid TABLE construct could mean this is markup for layout, or for a data table. Phill, valid markup is not a frill, not icing on the cake. It's at the core of an accessible Web and must be given a high priority. As a Web authoring tool vendor, I can state that you are wrong when you say requiring valid markup for accessibility will lose you credibility with authoring tool vendors. On the contrary, because valid markup is where accessibility should begin, you can only gain credibility by making valid markup a Priority 1 checklist item. Regards, Vlad Alexander Belus Technology Inc. http://xstandard.com
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2005 12:04:35 UTC